3 ms·

I don't really disagree with any of that, but it's also exactly what I'm talking about above. Given that you posted both the original reply and this one, I thin

by wk_end 6y ago

I don't really disagree with any of that, but it's also exactly what I'm talking about above. Given that you posted both the original reply and this one, I think you're kind of guilty of the old Motte & Bailey [1]. Just for the record: I'm privileged (and generally pretty polite/non-offensive I hope), I've rarely needed to deal with any of the issues addressed by CoCs, and I've also never really dealt with any of the issues others claim are caused by CoCs. I don't personally have a strong opinion on them, and lean towards trusting activists when they say things need to change. I'm just commenting on why discussions about them are so frequently unproductive: there's both misunderstanding and deliberate misrepresentation, because it's not codes of conduct in general that people - possibly wrong people! - don't like. [1] https://slatestarcodex.com/2014/11/03/all-in-all-another-brick-in-the-motte/ https://slatestarcodex.com/2014/11/03/all-in-all-another-bri...

pstuart 6y ago
That was tl;dr to decipher your accusation. Could you clarify please? I ask not to debate but to understand and correct future communications. The (intended) gist of my comments is to push back against the tactic of "look a stupid rule or stupid enforcement of rules; this is why we need to get rid of rules."
- wk_end 6y ago
  Sure. “Motte”: unobjectionable position no one would disagree with. “Bailey”: more extreme position; the one you actually believe and that people take issue with. Must not directly logically follow from the motte per se. Motte & Bailey (informal) fallacy: Jumping between the motte and the bailey for rhetorical effect, as convenient. In this case, the motte is “codes of conduct are just like the HN guidelines, they’re everywhere and no one objects”. The bailey is the actual CoCs in question, and the culture of pushing projects, conferences, etc. to adopt them, which tends to be rooted in “liberal identity politics” or whatever you want to call it. When people criticize the latter (the bailey), advocates retreat to the former (the motte) - they’re just normal guidelines like “be nice”, basic manners, who would object to that? - and then when the argument is over continue pushing for the latter.

by wk_end 6y ago

pstuart 6y ago

That was tl;dr to decipher your accusation. Could you clarify please? I ask not to debate but to understand and correct future communications. The (intended) gist of my comments is to push back against the tactic of "look a stupid rule or stupid enforcement of rules; this is why we need to get rid of rules."

wk_end 6y ago
Sure. “Motte”: unobjectionable position no one would disagree with. “Bailey”: more extreme position; the one you actually believe and that people take issue with. Must not directly logically follow from the motte per se. Motte & Bailey (informal) fallacy: Jumping between the motte and the bailey for rhetorical effect, as convenient. In this case, the motte is “codes of conduct are just like the HN guidelines, they’re everywhere and no one objects”. The bailey is the actual CoCs in question, and the culture of pushing projects, conferences, etc. to adopt them, which tends to be rooted in “liberal identity politics” or whatever you want to call it. When people criticize the latter (the bailey), advocates retreat to the former (the motte) - they’re just normal guidelines like “be nice”, basic manners, who would object to that? - and then when the argument is over continue pushing for the latter.